D&D 5E New Players same level as Current Players?

[Illithidbix]

The Actual Answer is: The one that works for your group. (Esp. the new players!)

In pretty much all the games I've played new characters (for whatever reason) start at the same level as everyone else.
In most cases we don't bother tracking XP and the DM decides what level we are and when we level up.
Sometimes we have single "group XP" total and use that.

I imagine sometimes differing levels can indeed be fun to play, if it's something the players all buy into.

 

[True_Blue]

I start new characters at the same level as the rest of the group. Its what the players like and they have the most fun that way. There isn't any good reason I've seen to start them lower.

 

[ccs]

It depends upon the game we're running. And the people involved.

 

[n00b f00]

That is a well made and relevant point that is tied to myine, but cuts across to something a little different. Video games with static PVE content are balanced around a specific group of people of a specific power level. With some possible predetermined variances in difficulty. So you for that type of stuff everyone will usually be roughly on the same foot. Something like Wow or Destiny. Where as in games with flatter power curves or more open ended gameplay, even a new player can be a huge help. Such as in games like Eve Online and Dayz.

Now 5e having a flatter curve fits into there. A fireball is always going to hurt something so lower lvl players can have meaningful impact. More importantly you have a GM who is intelligently designing encounters for you, rather than against the idea of you to be run by AI.

What I was referring to was more the idea that in a game like say WOW the character and gear you have are sort of their own reward. A very large driving force is to attain this character that can be 100 to thousands of hours of work. Everyone starting the game with your exact gear would totally remove that aspect from the game. In a game with millions of random players facing off against occasionally released content this is a huge deal.

But that same situation in a cooperative game whose outcome will have no effect on another table. It doesn't take away anything from me. If someone came into my campaign 4 months in with a character of the same level and equitable resources I wouldn't be upset. Because resource collection isn't the focus of most games and in most gamed where it is, it's usually shared somewhat evenly. That character isn't an unearned fake character, because we're not playing a competitive resource game.

That was more my point, but both yours and mines come from the fact that table top games have GMS and Crpgs basically don't.

Now it sounds like that moment you had with the new player was fun. And if that's what works for your guys then keep on trucking. But people can still have moments when mechanically equal. People still develop once they're badass. And not every story with a hero needs to show their rise from chump to badass. Sometimes the badass level just goes to badder ass.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I bring any new characters into the campaign at equal experience to what the current players have because that is easiest for me as a DM, and doesn't make the new character feel like a liability to the other characters, or the new player feel like they aren't an equal among the rest of us.

However, it's worth noting that when bringing a new player into a campaign, I arrange for it to be the beginning of a new campaign unless the player in question is already experienced with the system we are playing in - just so that they have the best chance at learning the game without feeling overwhelmed.

 

[Al2O3]

To me that would be very dependent on group and campaign. In the case described (new players with new characters) I would check with the new players (if they are new to D&D 5e) if they would prefer to learn the mechanics in the apprentice levels first and with the old players if they would prefer the new players to work their way to power or contribute at equal power from the start.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

The players in our group (myself included) don't judge our worth based on metrics in a game.

Neither do we. Sounds like we're on the same page, just with different approaches to that page.

 

[delericho]

How experienced are the new players?

If they're new to RPGs, I'd advise you to start them at the same XP total as everyone else - they'll almost certainly enjoy the game most if they're making a near-equal contribution to the success of the group, and that's best achieved by starting them at the higher level.

If they're experienced players, then I'd recommend doing whatever it is you'd normally do if a PC dies and is replaced (by the same player). That is, if the replacement character starts over at 1st, start the new guys at 1st; if the new guy starts at "group level -1", then do that. (In my current campaign, that means starting over at 1st. That wasn't the case in 3e, but 5e seems much more forgiving of split-level groups. YMMV, of course.)

 

[Jester David]

Give them half their former experience.
It's not that bad in 5e, as you can still hit and contribute to the party and catching up is possible. I played a level 1 character in a party with level 6s and it was fine (although I had to be careful to avoid hits).

 

[Shendorion]

I prefer having a campaign level rather than individual character levels. If someone at the table wants to explore the idea of a less seasoned character out of its depth among more capable companions that's one thing; it's another entirely to have a cooperative game in which one player feels like they're being carried when they want to pull equal weight. I'm not a big fan of the whole "pay your dues" mentality, and I prefer experience as a way of tracking progress through the narrative than a system of reward and punishment.